Tarkik Chakrachudamani Acharya Samant
Bhadra was a great
acharya of the second Vikram Century. He is famous as the first
writer of adoration verse. He has written many stotras full of
deep logic. Dewagam Stotra is incomparable and is also called
Apta Mimansa, wherein a thoughtful discussion on Apta (the real
God) has been reported. Acharya Samant Bhadra wrote a commentary
named 'Gandh Hasti Mahabhasya' on the Tatvartha Sutra (Moksha
Shastra) of Umaswami. This Dewagam Stotra is the benedictory
verse of Gandh Hasti Mahabhasya, in the context of the same of
Tatvartha Sutra.

Many serious and spacious
commentaries in Sanskrit have been written on this stotra,
amongst which, the Ashta Shati of Acharya Aklankdeo with eight
hundred verses and the Ashta Shahastri of Acharya Vidyanand with
eight thousand verses are very famous. This stotra has one
hundred and fourteen verses. It is not possible to give them
here. Its meaning is also very complex and this is no place for
its exposition. The first sixteen verses are reproduced here as
sample. The stotra and its commentaries need studies in the
original.

The subject matter of the
stotra is to clarify the chief characteristics of the Apta in the
style of adoration verses. This has been written as an irony.
Acharya Vidyanandi writes explaining the irony .-

"It is as if Bhagwan
(Apta) himself asked Samant Bhadra why Acharya Uma Swami in his
great scripture Tatvartha Sutra has adored him without describing
His great attributes, when such attributes are present in
countless numbers. Samant Bhadra wrote this Dewagam Stotra in
answer to this question.

DWAGAM STOTRA
(APTA MIMANSA)

Oh God ! you are not great in my vision, only
on account of the facts that gods from the heaven come to have
your Darshan, that you move in the sky and that you are adorned
with whisks and divine umbrellas; for all these are seen in an
illusive being also.

In the same manner external and
internal embellishments of the physical form etc., though not
found in illusive beings, are found in heavenly beings, having
attachment and other passions. On account of these also you
cannot be great in my view.

Your greatness does not hold
good, because you are the basis of all scriptural knowledge and a
propagator of the religion, because there are many writers of
religious scriptures and propagators of religious sects and
communities and the utterances of all these are generally
mutually contradictory.

Oh Lord! your greatness lies in
omniscience and complete detachment. Omniscience and complete
detachment are not impossible of achievement.. The complete
elimination of delusion, attachment and aversions and other
blemishes and non-existence of Gyanawaran and other Karmas are
possible, because their progressive elimination is seen. Just as
in this world impure gold-stone with the help of fire becomes
pure, discarding all internal and external impurities, in the
same way with the fire of meditation of the pure operative
consciousness, a soul can be free from its blemishes and become
omniscient and completely detached.

Very small atoms etc., internal
attachments etc. and distant substances like Mount Meru are the
objects of vision of some being; because they are known by
inference. All those that are known by inference are actually
seen by somebody. Just as we infer by the presence of smoke the
existence of fire, somebody sees the actual fire also. Likewise
if we know the subtle, internal and distant objects by inference,
somebody can know them directly. This way the existence of an
omniscient being is proved.

Oh Bhagwan! that omniscient and
detached being is yourself, because your voice is without any
contradictions as is clear from the scriptures and logic.

Those who are burning with the
fire of the pride of being Aptas or Omniscient Beings, that is,
those who have thought themselves to be Aptas, though in fact
they are not, are quite distant from the nectar of multifacedness
of things, as propounded by you, and believe that their wrong
beliefs are true. In reality, they cannot be regarded as Aptas,
for the nature of things as propounded by them is antagonistic.

Oh Lord, those who are in the
grip of the ghost of single-facedness, are enemies of themselves
and others, because in their opinion there is no systematic other
world etc., and merit and demerit karmas.

Oh Lord, if we accept the
exclusive existence of the substances, we will have to uphold
that there is nothing like non-existence. If we don't accept
non-existence of things, all the substances will become universal
and eternal, having no separate existence of any, which is not
acceptable to you.

If we accept the non-existence
of Praagabhava (absence of the present modification in the former
one of a substance), all the manifestations of substances will
become eternal. Likewise if we don't accept Pradhvansabhava
(non-existence of the present modification in the future
modification of a substance), all the modifications of all the
substances will be without an end.

If we don't recognise
Anyonyabhava (which shows that the present modification of a
matter substance cannot disturb at all the present modification
of other matter substances), all the visible matter substances
will assume one shape only, in the present; and if we do not
recognise Atyantabhava (complete non-existence of one substance
into the other) all the substances will be eternally one and will
not be able to be described.

How will the Abhavaikantwadies
establish their own opinions and find fault with those of others,
in the absence of the reliability of consciousness and speech, if
existence is treated as altogether non-existence ?

If somebody, in order to save
himself from the defects of both Bhavaikant and Abhavaikant
accepts Ubhayaikant, then those, who are against the logic of
multifacedness, will uphold that being mutually contradictory,
both will have separate faults of their own. If somebody to save
himself from this awkward situation accepts Avachayaikant, then a
substance will become an object of speech, by saying that it is
really not so.

Oh Lord, therefore, a substance
is from some point of view Sat (existent), Asat (non-existent),
Sat-Asat both (existent as well as non-existent), inexplicable,
existent and inexplicable non-existent and inexplicable and
existent non-existent and inexplicable, respectively. All this is
true according to the Sapta Bhang logic,not absolutely.

Who will not accept the
existence of substance from the Point of view of self-substance,
self-space, self-time and self-manifestation ? Likewise who willnot recognise the non-existence of the substance from the
point of view of other substance, other space, other time and
other manifestation ? Every reasonable man will accept these. If
some one does not do so, the godly scheme of things will stand
shattered.

From the point of view of description step by
step, substance is both existent and non-existent (Bhavabhava)
and since it isnot possible to express both existence and
non-existence simultaneously, substance is inexplicable from some
point of view. After this the three applications of the Bhangas
existent and inexplicable, non-existent and inexplicable and
existent-non-existent and inexplicable should be followed, as
they are from individual point of views.